Rulings

Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following a formal investigation, the advertising rules apply and where we draw the line in judging whether an ad has broken the rules. We also publish a list of companies and organisations which agree to amend or withdraw their ad without being subject to a formal ruling.

Rulings (5)

CityFibre Holdings Ltd
- Not upheld
- Direct mail
- 23 April 2025
A direct mailing wasn't misleading.
Vodafone Ltd
- Upheld in part
- Website (own site)
- 16 April 2025
Claims on Vodafone’s website which contained references to reliability and coverage failed to objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features.
Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a Three Mobile
- Not upheld
- National newspaper (paid ad), Social media (paid ad), Internet (website content)
- 02 April 2025
A national press ad, two paid-for Meta ads and a website for Three Mobile didn’t make misleading ‘best value’ claims.
EE Ltd t/a EE
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad), Television, Radio
- 26 March 2025
A TV, radio, paid-for social media and digital poster ad for EE made unsubstantiated claims about the performance and capabilities of a Wi-Fi router.
DeVosVoorzieningen BVBA t/a Qinux TitanPG
- Upheld
- Internet (video)
- 13 November 2024
A pre-roll YouTube ad made unsubstantiated claims about the features and popularity of a smart watch.

Informally resolved (0)

Mail order cases (0)

Database cases (0)